Tuesday, March 27, 2012

A beach cleanup will be held at Parker River National Wildlife Refuge on March 31 from 9 - 4.

We have over six miles of beautiful
beaches...with just dunes and surf! Come to parking lot #1 at the Refuge
(it's at the end of Sunset Drive).

Participants in the cleanup will be given bags
and offered one of several access points to the beaches. Thanks to the
Rotary Club of Newburyport, litter-grabbers will be loaned out on a
first-come basis.

Come
for an hour or two and enjoy the scenery while helping preserve wildlife
habitats. For more information: Jean Adams, Volunteer Coordinator, 978-465-5753 X 208.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

This rezoning ordinance has been reintroduced by
Councillors Connell and Derrivan. The fresh start was because the Council
did not pass the ordinance within the prescribed time limit; the saga started
in the last term and is continuing this term. A change in zoning requires
8 votes of the 11 City Council members.

I’ve said several times that I've gotten more
constituent feedback on this than the meals tax, paid parking, wind turbine,
and dogs combined. And I just was
asked my opinion last night at Market Basket.
Overwhelmingly the initial feedback was opposed to this change in
zoning.

When this ordinance was reintroduced a few weeks
ago, I spoke about why I am against the rezoning based on the current
proposal. I've been open to new
information. There are good reasons to support the change particularly as it
relates to open space. It might
but good for open space and the current property owners and the developer and the
City would get some financial ‘sweeteners’ of approximately $65,000 but I still
feel as I did on November 14th:

the traffic of an intense use on Storey Ave
with an in-out only on Storey will be too dangerous

The proposed usage including a drive-thru pharmacy
for the rezoned lots is too intensive for an already chaotic
intersection. I don’t think a CVS
will bring added traffic to the area. I
don’t think it will be dangerous most times of the day. But at peak periods of the work day, it is
dangerous and it will be made MORE dangerous.
Turn into the Atria at 5:30pm, go down into the property, turn and try
to pull out and try to take a left--this will be what like pulling out of a
CVS...multiplied by many more cars than go in and out of the Atria or Russell
Terrace. The developer's ideas on
traffic mitigation, essentially a suicide lane in the middle of Storey Ave., don’t
really address the issue. As one constituent told me, this proposal turns
purgatory into a full-fledged hell. The developers need to work out another
egress. The most recent news articles seem to indicate they are discussing with the Woodman purchasing land to make that happen. The most natural egress from the potential CVS to Low Street, the lot of 255 Low Street, was sold in the fall of 2011interestingly, especially since I recall the Minco For Sale sign being there for about 4 years.

Anyway, one of the arguments for the rezoning:

If we don’t do it, a separate developer will move
in, make a deal with the Woodmans, and put 150 unit rental units, a 40B project,
on Low Street. My thought: any
developer that expects to build units on a property that is largely wetlands
next to the notorious and noxious Crow Lane landfill is going to have a tough
marketing project ahead. What will they
call it to attract renters? Stinky
Swampy Village might be a more apt name than Seaport Village. I also have a pop question for any traffic
engineers out there: what is going to cause more in and out traffic, a CVS with
drive through pharmacy or 150 units of rental housing?

Another argument for the rezoning:

If we don’t do it, Tropic Star will squeeze a
CVS on the parcels that are currently zoned commercial. My thought: If I vote Yes, a CVS gets
built. If I vote No, a CVS gets built.

Another argument for rezoning:

Making these two parcels commercial will ‘harmonize’
the zoning because the area is already overwhelmingly oriented to business. My thought: This argument ignores the fact
that hundreds of people live in the Woodman Way area, the Russell Terrace Area,
and the large apartment buildings on Storey and Low.

Like Councillor Cronin, I feel that we need to take a longer harder look at the
whole area. I'd be open to something like a zoning overlay or at least a real
planning effort around traffic flow and uses.
We need better planning tools for an area which has many contrasting
uses. Surely it would be in Tropic Star
and other property owners’ best interest as well.

CVS has sited 354 stores
in Massachusetts. Tropic Star has a track history of getting CVS projects approved in places like
Amesbury, Salisbury, and Concord, New Hampshire. And from what I've been able to determine, they are able to grind it out. I'm sure they can do
better than what has been presented so far.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

The City of Newburyport seeks interested residents to fill vacancies on severalmunicipal boards.

Newburyport’s excellence as a community is due in large part to citizen participation ingovernment and community affairs. Residents serve as volunteers on a wide variety of Cityboards, committees, commissions and councils, some of which are listed below:

If you are interested in serving on one of the above municipal boards or any other board,we encourage you to send a letter of interest with a resume or summary of relevantexperience to:City of NewburyportOffice of the MayorNewburyport City Hall60 Pleasant StreetNewburyport, MA 01950

Members are appointed as vacancies occur, and letters of interest will be kept on file forconsideration when an opening occurs.

Meals Taxes in Major U.S. Cities

Highest in Minneapolis, Chicago, Virginia Beach, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.Fiscal Fact No. 293
Tourists and business travelers quickly learn that taxes on meals are
sometimes higher than taxes on other goods. Meals taxes generally apply
to purchases of prepared food that are consumed in a restaurant or
similar establishment, or taken "to go" for later consumption. In
contrast, sales of groceries (or "non-prepared food") are completely
exempt from state sales tax in 30 states and the District of Columbia
and partly exempt in a further eight states. Meals taxes are usually
locally imposed but are sometimes imposed at the state level.
These high "prepared food" taxes are sometimes justified as a "luxury
tax" intended to target higher-income individuals, although the wide
diversity of takeout dining options suggests that such a tax is poorly
targeted to achieve that goal. One could say that it is a tax on
individuals with less flexible schedules or who do not like to
cook--rich or poor.
Others justify these taxes as tourism taxes, designed to shift tax
burdens to business and vacation travelers, similar to high taxes on
hotel rooms and car rentals. Because the benefit derived from added
economic activity from visitors and travelers probably exceeds the
government services they use during their stay, "tourism" taxes are
generally bad policy because they shift tax burdens away from those
residents who actually demand and benefit from government services.
Regardless of the justification, meals taxes can add significant
costs and lead to administrative complexity. For example, the
Massachusetts Department of Revenue provides the following examples in
attempting to explain which food transactions are subject to sales tax,
which are subject to additional meals tax, and which are tax-exempt:

Example: If a restaurant serves a patron a lasagna dinner, then the dinner is taxable.

However, if the restaurant also sells
frozen lasagna dinners that patrons heat in their own homes, these
dinners are not considered meals and therefore are not taxable because
they require additional preparation.

Example: If a patron purchases a pizza and two cans of soda from a restaurant, then both the pizza and sodas are taxable.

However, if the patron purchases a pizza
and a two-liter bottle of soda to go, then the pizza is taxable, but the
bottle of soda is tax-exempt since it was sold in an unopened original
container of at least 26 fluid ounces.

Example: If a restaurant
offers a patron, upon presentation of a coupon, two meals for the usual
price of one, the price of the free meal is excluded from the meals
tax. The tax is due only on the actual amount the restaurant charges the
patron.[1]

Those who run restaurants and other eating establishments bear the burden of complying with these often complex rules.
The table below lists the sales tax and meals tax in the 50 U.S. cities with the highest population. Some key findings:

Thirty-five of the 50 cities do not charge a higher tax on meals than on other goods.